Posted on 09/02/2016 11:24:46 AM PDT by SMGFan
Four survivors of the 2012 Colorado theater shooting massacre were ordered by a judge Thursday to pay Cinemark nearly $700,000 in legal fees.
The 28 families of those killed and wounded in the July 2012 shooting sued Cinemark, the movie chain that owns the Century 16 where James Holmes opened fire during a showing of “The Dark Knight Rises,” claiming that there wasn’t adequate security to stop Holmes from carrying out the attack.
An Arapahoe County civil jury ruled in May that Cinemark wasn’t liable for the shooting that left 12 people dead and 70 others. Lawyers for Cinemark then filed a “bill of costs” for $699,187.13 in June in the country court. The Denver Post noted that under state law, the winning side in a civil case is entitled to recover all of its legal costs.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
Agreed, this suit should not have been filed IMHO... I feel for the families who lost their loved ones to this nut, but this sue happy mentality of Americans and the bottom feeders always looking for a quick buck out of victims is not a good thing...
“If a business says you cannot come in armed, disarming you, and provides no security for you from harm, they have taken away your ability to defend yourself with equal,force. And are not protdcting you from attackers with greater force.”
Actually you have voluntarily allowed yourself to be disarmed. Worse yet you have voluntarily disarmed knowing you will not be protected.
“They ought to be liable. In Wisconsin, they are. And in Wisconsin, if they do not have adequate security, such as not inspecting people for weapons on entry, and no armed securty people, you can ignore their signs to disarm.”
A private business should have the right to conduct its business as it see fits. Private individuals should also have the same right. Neither party should be subject the coercive force of the state. The business should have the right to disarm you and not provide protection. You have the right to not patronize the establishment that has such an idiotic policy.
“why can’t garbage like this be stopped?”
well this is one way to stop it. Make people pay legal bills for filing frivolous lawsuits.
I don't think it is quite that simple. One must weigh the consequences of being discovered as well as the probability of being discovered. Prohibitions against carrying arms may have the force of law even in places where no attempt is made to detect such arms.
Those consequences could include lifetime forfeiture of a concealed carry permit. Looking to the courts to protect one from such consequences may be a foolish decision.
In a more perfect world, armed security and attempted detection of arms would be a requirement for creating a disarmament zone.
So does CCW the negate any duty to defend non-CCW citizens? No one or entity has a legal duty to defend another and CCW makes not a difference. There could be private contracts that provide protection and would be a matter of civil law in the event of breech of contract.
I am open to correction buy I do not think the police are under any legal obligation to defend anyone. Most police will defend others but I do not think they are legally required to do so.
Cinemark made the terms of entering their venue quite apparent so I do not see a contractual or civil issue.
Yeah, I am all for armed security and I do think they help; my point is that you can’t prevent every contingency, not with the likes of the crazies we have on this planet.
So I don’t think Cinemark is “liable” for not having one.
I agree they are a disincentive.
Were I a murderous crazy man, and I could pick between a theatre with armed security and one without, I’d pick the one without. And then I wonder. . . how crazy am I, actually, if I were to make a rational decision like that? Maybe I’d just be evil. I don’t buy too much of this “crazy” defense.
“...looks like an attempt to cash in on a tragedy. “
That’s my take. Sad they lost loved ones, sad they tried this stunt, and sad they’ll now lose big money because of it.
Lawyers talked them into it. Lawyers make money whatever the outcome. Lawyers won’t sue lawyers. Lawyers as politicians and judges rule our land. Lawyers make everything cost more.
Trump us NOT a lawyer, probably the most appealing thing about him.
I ignore all “no firearms allowed” signs. I line in Alabama where we have reinforced the RTBA. The business can ask me to leave and I would but it’s not against the law to ignore their signs it’s only illegal to refuse their request to leave. I go armed everywhere. After this shooting my family quit making fun of me for carrying at the movies. I would recommend everybody Carry at church also
Senator Sessions supported Trump from the beginning and that tells me a all I need to know. Alabama values and laws matter. What are other states doing - bending their citizens over on individual liberty.
The theater disarmed no one. Every patron voluntarily entered the theater without a firearm.
I am reminded of how people always say the Catholic Church has “mandatory” celibacy.
If these people had concealed carry permits and couldn’t carry into the theater they would have a case, but this suit had nothing to do with that. They said that the theater didn’t have adequate security. Expecting every business to have enough armed security to stop a terror attack is ludicrous.
It would depend on the circumstances of the fall, that would decide if a payout would occur. If it were the fault of the Cinema, such as a spill on the floor that was not cleaned up or a bad sidewalk not fixed, then I would hold them liable. If the patron was goofing around and fell, then it is the patron's fault.
The same could be said for the shooting incident. The Cinema put up signs, warning the patron's, that, this was a gun-free zone. They also, did not have security. Since the Cinema did not force the people to go there, it becomes the responsibility of the patron, to decide if they should use this theater or not, based on this information. I do not see how you can hold the Cinema liable, when the patron's knew this going in.
No one is forced to go there, but they’re still held liable for the safety of the patrons.
This is loser pays in action.
I do have a concealed weapons permit and I do not carry when we go to theaters that forbid firearms. I believe that I would have a legitimate beef if we were attacked by a psycho at one of these theaters. But I also believe that psychos are more likely to go on rampage where they know that people in the crowd will not be able to defend themselves with firearms... but was that one of the arguments used against the theater in court?
And I do like the meme that you posted, especially the little bat signal.
The plaintiffs would have to claim they would have carried a firearm if the theater would have let them. To do that they would have had to had CCW permits. No evidence that either of those is true, and they never claimed that. They just said the theater should have had enough security to prevent a terror attack. That would be an unreasonable burden on every business.
Even if a slip and fall case the plaintiff has to show some kind of negligence on the part of the defendant.
Nope. If they disarm you they are liable if you are attacked in their store. They require it as a condition of entry of all customers. The burden of your security is on them as they have deprived you of it when you could have otherwise kept your ability to defend yourself, armed.
You can attend Church even if you are not celibate. The movie theater is open to the public but does not allow guns. IMO, the business should be liable for that choice. If they do not wish for patrons to protect themselves then they should.
Taking your point further: It is a condition of entry that has nothing to do with the purpose of the business (showing a movie and selling snacks/drinks). There is no excuse for disarming the patrons and preventing them from defending themselves.
“In a more perfect world, armed security and attempted detection of arms would be a requirement for creating a disarmament zone.”
Agreed!
I was talking about so-called “mandatory” celibacy for clerics.
Every person who entered that theater unarmed did so voluntarily.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.